The new and emotionally led gun debate

So after that florida shooting, we are seeing yet again pushes to outlaw "Assault weapons", increase the ages at which someone can buy a gun etc.

What's everyones opinions on all of this??

One thing that sticks out for ME, is how brainless some of the calls seem to be.
In a # of states, you can get a license to drive at 15, 16 for most others.. IN some areas they are looking to lower the voting age to 17 (16 out in some areas of CA), all cause they are claiming that kids are "MORE emotionally secure and mentally mature".
BUT if they are that emotionally secure/mature, then why is it that they can't smoke till 18 (21 in a # of cities), drink till 21, buy guns till 21, or can 'stay on their parents health insurance plans till 27"??

The combination of mentally unstable people and ready access to firearms leads to things like the rise in mass shootings we have seen in the last 30 years.

I am not in favor of altering the 2d Amendment.
-The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. There was a specific reason for it; that reason is valid.
-I don't think there is enough will to get 2/3 of the states on board to modify or repeal it.

I don't think raising the age to purchase weapons will really have much effect. There is something to the argument that at 18, a brain is still developing. We have drawn the line at 18 to distinguish when someone is legally an adult. I have read that the brain continues to develop / mature into the mid 20's even into the early 30's. I know I am a much difference person emotionally, morally etc. than I was at 18. That said:
-Criminals are not obeying the laws that we have now.
-Minors who are using weapons in these incidents are generally using ones legally owned by their parents.

I am not in favor of arming teachers; for a few reasons.
-If educators wish to carry a weapon in accordance with their state's laws, that should be up to them.
-I don't think establishing a quota of 10 or 20% of educators needing to be armed is a good idea. I would rather we put the best educators in schools that we can, not the best ones that also are willing to be a de facto security force.
-It is not their job; that would fall to law enforcement or security. Would I step in between a child and a shooter? Probably. Would I fault a teacher who didn’t? Don’t know. Do I fault the deputy who was outside the school and failed to enter and attempt to,locate & neutralize the shooter? Yes. I can acknowledge that he likely didn’t know if it was one or five shooters, but his job is to protect the public, and he failed to try.

I am in favor of putting security in schools if the district wants it.
-What I don't like about this is feeling like we need to send children to fortresses to get an education. Yes, this is done in some other countries ... not what I ever thought would be needed in the US; but it is what it is at this point. I am saddened that we have devolved to the point that sick people are targeting kids, but if we know they are and will continue to do so we should protect the kids.
-I don't think this is a default for "you were in the military, you would be perfect for this job". Most people in the military do not get significant weapons training for what would essentially be a CQB scenario; to include most people in the Army and Marines.
-How do we pay for this? Schools are already underfunded, teachers already are buying supplies for their classrooms out of their own pockets etc. Funding a security force and the associated training will require an increase in taxes.

There is a failure on the right to acknowledge that ready an open access to weapons that can fire a large volume of rounds rapidly turns an amateur into a pretty effective killing machine in a confined area. Handguns kill more people every year, handguns are harder to get. Semi-automatic long rifles kill more people in mass shootings (shootings of 4+ victims in a single incident). I can be in and out of a gun store in MD with an AR15 or similar weapon in under an hour.

There is a failure on the left to acknowledge that this is as much a mental health issue as it is anything else. Killing is hard. Even when done in self defense it overrides most of our natural wiring to not exterminate another human; even when trained and indoctrinated into the militaristic nature of the job, the act of actually doing it generally gives people a moment of pause. Killing an adversary in war, who is trying to kill you (self defense), who has or is harming your family, friends etc. is far different than killing random people for no apparent reason other than rage ... which to me falls into the mental illness aspect of this discussion.

Addressing only the mental health, or the security in schools issue doesn't' solve the mental health issue; we have a problem with the mental state of a lot of people in our country; when combined with little value for human life, they kill people. Addressing the weapons access issue without also addressing the mental health issue is to the right of what is causing the problem; fighting the symptom vice the disease. We have a problem with general civility, value for life and plain courtesy, in general we are less concerned about the well being of others than we used to be. Couple that less civil nature to mental instability and access to a weapon that can fire 90+ rounds a minute and something is bound to happen. Granted, you could kill a lot of people with a hammer, knife or a spoon if want ... but a firearm is just efficient.

As far as this being an emotional debate. There is and to an extent should be emotion ... people are getting killed, kids are getting killed at school ... some place that not long ago would have been considered overtly safe. Now, most schools have not experienced a school shooting ... but no school / group of kids knows if today or tomorrow they will be the next one. I would expect a parent who has lost a child, or someone who lived through one of these incidents to be emotional; I think they should be. Ultimately the decisions should be logical and thought through, but emotion is what makes this personal and us human.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

The combination of mentally unstable people and ready access to firearms leads to things like the rise in mass shootings we have seen in the last 30 years.

And how many times have we heard AFTER the shooting, that "Gee this person was on our radar/we spoke to him but decided there was nothing there" etc??? How many More "MISSED opportunities do we give the FBI/Cops, before we start railing against THEM rather than GUNS/GUNS/GUNS..??

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

-I don't think there is enough will to get 2/3 of the states on board to modify or repeal it.

With the ammount of kids protesting, i wouldn't be so sure of that.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I don't think raising the age to purchase weapons will really have much effect. There is something to the argument that at 18, a brain is still developing. We have drawn the line at 18 to distinguish when someone is legally an adult. I have read that the brain continues to develop / mature into the mid 20's even into the early 30's. I know I am a much difference person emotionally, morally etc. than I was at 18. That said:

And what gets me is the Inconsistency of the left in their arguments
-A kid of 16 is mentally mature enough to drive
-A kid of 14 is mature enough to screw, and have abortions without parental knowledge OR consent.
-A kid of 5 is mentally mature/emotionally adjusted enough to decide THEY want to be a different sex/gender, and screw what the parents say.
But
A kid of 19 is not old enough to drink (and in some states/counties, not old enough to smoke)
A kid of 22 is not mature enough to figure out and get his or her OWN health care...

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

-It is not their job; that would fall to law enforcement or security.

But look at how ineffective the 'security' and LE at this and several other shootings have been.. hell iirc in ONE of those shootings, the security guards were BOTH across campus from their security office, WHERE THEIR GUNS WERE LOCKED UP IN THE SAFE'.. So they would have needed to run back to the office, get in, get into the safe, get the gun out, LOAD magazines, THEN go to where the shooter was.. and before they even got that far, the shooter capped himself after causing a lot of mess..
In this case, a cop STAYED OUTSIDE< and didn't enter to try and engage the shooter...

Several shootings now, we've heard of this or that teacher who had time to RUN OVER and throw himself on top of kids to protect them. BUT had he been armed he could have spent that SAME TIME dropping the shooter...

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Would I step in between a child and a shooter? Probably. Would I fault a teacher who didn’t? Don’t know.

And its not just that angle.. I've already heard from some fellow gamers (and geeks) who are teachers, and one flat out says i would REFUSE to carry a ccw, as i don't believe in guns. Another flat out said she refuses to take a life, even if it would save dozens of others...

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I am in favor of putting security in schools if the district wants it.
-What I don't like about this is feeling like we need to send children to fortresses to get an education. Yes, this is done in some other countries ... not what I ever thought would be needed in the US; but it is what it is at this point.

While i don't like having to make schools "Fortresses", its what seems to be needed. WE protect banks, fed buildings, hell even concerts and sports venues more than we do our schools...

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

-How do we pay for this? Schools are already underfunded, teachers already are buying supplies for their classrooms out of their own pockets etc. Funding a security force and the associated training will require an increase in taxes.

DO like they have it now.. Those parents in said school district (and even non-parents who get done via property taxes for paying for the schools) could have it as a "levee' option on a ballot.. Add say 1$ per person in said district per 100k of home value, to pay for it.. LET THE PARENTS get the say.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

There is a failure on the right to acknowledge that ready an open access to weapons that can fire a large volume of rounds rapidly turns an amateur into a pretty effective killing machine in a confined area. Handguns kill more people every year, handguns are harder to get. Semi-automatic long rifles kill more people in mass shootings (shootings of 4+ victims in a single incident). I can be in and out of a gun store in MD with an AR15 or similar weapon in under an hour.

Thing is, in 49 school shootings, we have had only 4 where an AR or other 'assault rifle' (which ARs are not) were used, but even in ones where pistols were used, we still had lots of deaths..
So JUST blaming it on "assault rifles" is disingenuous, which is one reason i keep railing against the left for.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

There is a failure on the left to acknowledge that this is as much a mental health issue as it is anything else.

That is for several reasons.
1) The left were the ones who pushed to make it harder to get people committed.
B) the left were the ones who made it darn near impossible to keep people committed (since they were the ones iirc in the 60s who forced laws to shut down a # of insane asylums)
FACTS they won't admit to, since it shows THEY ARE partially to blame for all of this.
and most importantly if they admitted mental issues were at fault, it detracts from their rabid fascination with GUNS ARE EVIL..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

As far as this being an emotional debate. There is and to an extent should be emotion ... people are getting killed, kids are getting killed at school ... some place that not long ago would have been considered overtly safe.

But why is that?? Back in the 50s when my dad was in school, cause of hunting clubs, NROTC programs and such, we saw MORE GUNS in school than we do now, and no shootings. Additionally the PCness of society in restringing discipline, that started in the late 80s early 90s, has made it to where kids who imo SHOULDN'T be in school, cause of their violent history and other issues, STILL are there.

And how many times have we heard AFTER the shooting, that "Gee this person was on our radar/we spoke to him but decided there was nothing there" etc??? How many More "MISSED opportunities do we give the FBI/Cops, before we start railing against THEM rather than GUNS/GUNS/GUNS..??

We generally only hear about when law enforcement screws up; almost never when they get it right. That said, we should hold law enforcement accountable, that doesn’t change the issue off ready access to firearms by mentally unstable people too much.

Originally Posted by garhkal

With the ammount of kids protesting, i wouldn't be so sure of that.

Walkouts and protests in FL, CA don’t reflect the vast majority of the country.

Originally Posted by garhkal

And what gets me is the Inconsistency of the left in their arguments
-A kid of 16 is mentally mature enough to drive
-A kid of 14 is mature enough to screw, and have abortions without parental knowledge OR consent.
-A kid of 5 is mentally mature/emotionally adjusted enough to decide THEY want to be a different sex/gender, and screw what the parents say.
But
A kid of 19 is not old enough to drink (and in some states/counties, not old enough to smoke)
A kid of 22 is not mature enough to figure out and get his or her OWN health care...

That isn’t so much a left vs right thing. There are various ages for certain decisions.

Originally Posted by garhkal

But look at how ineffective the 'security' and LE at this and several other shootings have been.. hell iirc in ONE of those shootings, the security guards were BOTH across campus from their security office, WHERE THEIR GUNS WERE LOCKED UP IN THE SAFE'.. So they would have needed to run back to the office, get in, get into the safe, get the gun out, LOAD magazines, THEN go to where the shooter was.. and before they even got that far, the shooter capped himself after causing a lot of mess..
In this case, a cop STAYED OUTSIDE< and didn't enter to try and engage the shooter...

You think a teacher / recreation shooter would do better? In some cases I am sure they would, I am not convinced that would be the case overall. While I do not like the (lack of) action by the school resource officer, what he did (taking a position and waiting) was probably procedurally correct. The sheriff said he would have expected the SRO to engage, but was that the policy or order relayed on the radio? We are talking a lone SRO, not a member of SWAT or a CQB team. Chris Kyle, the most lethal SeAL sniper ever was killed by a far less trained / experienced shooter who shot him from behind and was within 5 feet of him.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960Several shootings now, we've heard of this or that teacher who had time to RUN OVER and throw himself on top of kids to protect them. BUT had he been armed he could have spent that SAME TIME dropping the shooter...[/quote]

What is the ROE for these teachers? What are their protections if they miss the shooter and hit a kid? What is their liability if they don't act? Are they allowed to shoot a kid attacking another kid with a knife? What are the school's options if none of the teachers want to carry? Do schools hire less proficient teacher but ones that are willing to carry a weapon if they can’t make an arbitrary quota?

I'm trying not to dismiss the idea out of hand, but it seems that most of the recommendations in this lane have little granularity past "arm the teachers” that I don’t think people are thinking through.

Originally Posted by garhkal

And its not just that angle.. I've already heard from some fellow gamers (and geeks) who are teachers, and one flat out says i would REFUSE to carry a ccw, as i don't believe in guns. Another flat out said she refuses to take a life, even if it would save dozens of others...

I wouldn’t argue with their position, that isn’t their job. I don’t pick my doctor because he is a really good runner, I pick him because he is a really good doctor.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960While i don't like having to make schools "Fortresses", its what seems to be needed. WE protect banks, fed buildings, hell even concerts and sports venues more than we do our schools...[/quote]

Places like banks, federal buildings etc. have been expected to be targets; schools not so much until about 30 years ago. I am not expected to be a target; I don’t have a security detail ... POTUS on the other hand is, he does and should have a detail.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960DO like they have it now.. Those parents in said school district (and even non-parents who get done via property taxes for paying for the schools) could have it as a "levee' option on a ballot.. Add say 1$ per person in said district per 100k of home value, to pay for it.. LET THE PARENTS get the say.[/quote]

It would get done via property taxes, but the cost would run a lot more than what you are estimating, beyond the obvious thing like the salaries there are costs for training, liscensing, insurance, benefits etc. Once bureaucracy gets involved a $25k per year rent a cop will really cost closer to $50k a year, then they start retiring and you have those pensions too.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960Thing is, in 49 school shootings, we have had only 4 where an AR or other 'assault rifle' (which ARs are not) were used, but even in ones where pistols were used, we still had lots of deaths..
So JUST blaming it on "assault rifles" is disingenuous, which is one reason i keep railing against the left for[/quote]

Focusing on assault style weapons does skew the argument, but assault style weapons are the easiest to tighten up on (laws on those are more lax) and that particular type of weapon most easily makes an amateur more effective.

Originally Posted by garhkal

That is for several reasons.
1) The left were the ones who pushed to make it harder to get people committed.

And the republicans passed legislation that cut federal funding for mental health professionals in schools. Waiting for them to need commits Li’s fighting the symptom vice the disease.

Originally Posted by garhkal

B) the left were the ones who made it darn near impossible to keep people committed (since they were the ones iirc in the 60s who forced laws to shut down a # of insane asylums)

That was bi partisan. Again, I think if you wait for someone to be disturbed enough to need to be committed in an asylum then you are too late.

Originally Posted by garhkal

FACTS they won't admit to, since it shows THEY ARE partially to blame for all of this.

Agree, but I think you should also look at the actions (facts) on both sides.

Originally Posted by garhkal

and most importantly if they admitted mental issues were at fault, it detracts from their rabid fascination with GUNS ARE EVIL..

Actually most don’t argue guns are evil, the ones who get very vocal get a lot of press, but most of the arguments if you research it tie mental health in pretty fairly.

In the same vein, the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” detracts from the role that firearms play in violent crimes.

I obviously lean more right than left, but can’t discount that both sides have ownership of this problem.

Originally Posted by garhkal

But why is that?? Back in the 50s when my dad was in school, cause of hunting clubs, NROTC programs and such, we saw MORE GUNS in school than we do now, and no shootings. Additionally the PCness of society in restringing discipline, that started in the late 80s early 90s, has made it to where kids who imo SHOULDN'T be in school, cause of their violent history and other issues, STILL are there.

I think going a bit further ahead of the “violent history” is the bigger issue.

Going back to the 50s etc. we (the societal “we”) in general a higher regard for civility and human life. In many cases I would argue that a culture that has removed the filters on violence, sexual assault / violence, and an expansion of the idolization of criminal culture has resulted in youth / young adults that are inoculated to the mental barriers most people from when we were kids had on things like shooting up schools etc. when I was in infantry school we had very realistic makeup and props for battle casualties inserted into training exercises; just recently the Marine Corps cut that program by about 80% because the need wasn’t there. One resource sponsor I was talking to cited USN psychological studies that showed most of the youmg Marines had seen so much of that from video games and movies it wasn’t getting the shock effect that it was intended to provide.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

And how many times have we heard AFTER the shooting, that "Gee this person was on our radar/we spoke to him but decided there was nothing there" etc??? How many More "MISSED opportunities do we give the FBI/Cops, before we start railing against THEM rather than GUNS/GUNS/GUNS..??

We generally only hear about when law enforcement screws up; almost never when they get it right. That said, we should hold law enforcement accountable, that doesn’t change the issue off ready access to firearms by mentally unstable people too much.

Originally Posted by garhkal

With the ammount of kids protesting, i wouldn't be so sure of that.

Walkouts and protests in FL, CA don’t reflect the vast majority of the country.

Originally Posted by garhkal

And what gets me is the Inconsistency of the left in their arguments
-A kid of 16 is mentally mature enough to drive
-A kid of 14 is mature enough to screw, and have abortions without parental knowledge OR consent.
-A kid of 5 is mentally mature/emotionally adjusted enough to decide THEY want to be a different sex/gender, and screw what the parents say.
But
A kid of 19 is not old enough to drink (and in some states/counties, not old enough to smoke)
A kid of 22 is not mature enough to figure out and get his or her OWN health care...

That isn’t so much a left vs right thing. There are various ages for certain decisions.

Originally Posted by garhkal

But look at how ineffective the 'security' and LE at this and several other shootings have been.. hell iirc in ONE of those shootings, the security guards were BOTH across campus from their security office, WHERE THEIR GUNS WERE LOCKED UP IN THE SAFE'.. So they would have needed to run back to the office, get in, get into the safe, get the gun out, LOAD magazines, THEN go to where the shooter was.. and before they even got that far, the shooter capped himself after causing a lot of mess..
In this case, a cop STAYED OUTSIDE< and didn't enter to try and engage the shooter...

You think a teacher / recreation shooter would do better? In some cases I am sure they would, I am not convinced that would be the case overall. While I do not like the (lack of) action by the school resource officer, what he did (taking a position and waiting) was probably procedurally correct. The sheriff said he would have expected the SRO to engage, but was that the policy or order relayed on the radio? We are talking a lone SRO, not a member of SWAT or a CQB team. Chris Kyle, the most lethal SeAL sniper ever was killed by a far less trained / experienced shooter who shot him from behind and was within 5 feet of him.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960Several shootings now, we've heard of this or that teacher who had time to RUN OVER and throw himself on top of kids to protect them. BUT had he been armed he could have spent that SAME TIME dropping the shooter...[/quote]

What is the ROE for these teachers? What are their protections if they miss the shooter and hit a kid? What is their liability if they don't act? Are they allowed to shoot a kid attacking another kid with a knife? What are the school's options if none of the teachers want to carry? Do schools hire less proficient teacher but ones that are willing to carry a weapon if they can’t make an arbitrary quota?

I'm trying not to dismiss the idea out of hand, but it seems that most of the recommendations in this lane have little granularity past "arm the teachers” that I don’t think people are thinking through.

Originally Posted by garhkal

And its not just that angle.. I've already heard from some fellow gamers (and geeks) who are teachers, and one flat out says i would REFUSE to carry a ccw, as i don't believe in guns. Another flat out said she refuses to take a life, even if it would save dozens of others...

I wouldn’t argue with their position, that isn’t their job. I don’t pick my doctor because he is a really good runner, I pick him because he is a really good doctor.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960While i don't like having to make schools "Fortresses", its what seems to be needed. WE protect banks, fed buildings, hell even concerts and sports venues more than we do our schools...[/quote]

Places like banks, federal buildings etc. have been expected to be targets; schools not so much until about 30 years ago. I am not expected to be a target; I don’t have a security detail ... POTUS on the other hand is, he does and should have a detail.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960DO like they have it now.. Those parents in said school district (and even non-parents who get done via property taxes for paying for the schools) could have it as a "levee' option on a ballot.. Add say 1$ per person in said district per 100k of home value, to pay for it.. LET THE PARENTS get the say.[/quote]

It would get done via property taxes, but the cost would run a lot more than what you are estimating, beyond the obvious thing like the salaries there are costs for training, liscensing, insurance, benefits etc. Once bureaucracy gets involved a $25k per year rent a cop will really cost closer to $50k a year, then they start retiring and you have those pensions too.

[QUOTE=garhkal;370960Thing is, in 49 school shootings, we have had only 4 where an AR or other 'assault rifle' (which ARs are not) were used, but even in ones where pistols were used, we still had lots of deaths..
So JUST blaming it on "assault rifles" is disingenuous, which is one reason i keep railing against the left for[/quote]

Focusing on assault style weapons does skew the argument, but assault style weapons are the easiest to tighten up on (laws on those are more lax) and that particular type of weapon most easily makes an amateur more effective.

Originally Posted by garhkal

That is for several reasons.
1) The left were the ones who pushed to make it harder to get people committed.

And the republicans passed legislation that cut federal funding for mental health professionals in schools. Waiting for them to need commits Li’s fighting the symptom vice the disease.

Originally Posted by garhkal

B) the left were the ones who made it darn near impossible to keep people committed (since they were the ones iirc in the 60s who forced laws to shut down a # of insane asylums)

That was bi partisan. Again, I think if you wait for someone to be disturbed enough to need to be committed in an asylum then you are too late.

Originally Posted by garhkal

FACTS they won't admit to, since it shows THEY ARE partially to blame for all of this.

Agree, but I think you should also look at the actions (facts) on both sides.

Originally Posted by garhkal

and most importantly if they admitted mental issues were at fault, it detracts from their rabid fascination with GUNS ARE EVIL..

Actually most don’t argue guns are evil, the ones who get very vocal get a lot of press, but most of the arguments if you research it tie mental health in pretty fairly.

In the same vein, the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” detracts from the role that firearms play in violent crimes.

I obviously lean more right than left, but can’t discount that both sides have ownership of this problem.

Originally Posted by garhkal

But why is that?? Back in the 50s when my dad was in school, cause of hunting clubs, NROTC programs and such, we saw MORE GUNS in school than we do now, and no shootings. Additionally the PCness of society in restringing discipline, that started in the late 80s early 90s, has made it to where kids who imo SHOULDN'T be in school, cause of their violent history and other issues, STILL are there.

I think going a bit further ahead of the “violent history” is the bigger issue.

Going back to the 50s etc. we (the societal “we”) in general a higher regard for civility and human life. In many cases I would argue that a culture that has removed the filters on violence, sexual assault / violence, and an expansion of the idolization of criminal culture has resulted in youth / young adults that are inoculated to the mental barriers most people from when we were kids had on things like shooting up schools etc. when I was in infantry school we had very realistic makeup and props for battle casualties inserted into training exercises; just recently the Marine Corps cut that program by about 80% because the need wasn’t there. One resource sponsor I was talking to cited USN psychological studies that showed most of the youmg Marines had seen so much of that from video games and movies it wasn’t getting the shock effect that it was intended to provide.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

We generally only hear about when law enforcement screws up; almost never when they get it right. That said, we should hold law enforcement accountable, that doesn’t change the issue off ready access to firearms by mentally unstable people too much.

True, we didn't use to hear of the screw ups as much, but we do seem to hear then quite often these days..
And as for the mental issues, MY big thing there, is what counts? We've heard from many dems about how WE mil members are 'nuts' time after time.. Plus if they do get a 'mental ban' in place, what's the betting they make it WAY TOO broad so anyone with anything the left defines as a mental illness, gets caught.
Also as i asked, does that then mean everyone ELSE in the house (OR family) also loses THEIR guns, just so mr mental wacko, can't just grab THEIR guns to go on a rampage??

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Walkouts and protests in FL, CA don’t reflect the vast majority of the country.

There was a heck of a lot more schools than just those in CA and FL. THere were ones in Texas, Ok, OH, KY, Wa and iirc In..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

That isn’t so much a left vs right thing. There are various ages for certain decisions.

But WHY is it so all over the dam place? IF someone's mentally secure/mature enough to be an adult for some stuff, WHY THEN are they not seen as mentally mature for all things?
If they are not mature enough for some stuff, why are they mature enough for others??

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

You think a teacher / recreation shooter would do better?

Maybe, maybe not. BUT i would rather NOT keep teachers disarmed/make yet MORE gun-free zones, and disarm yet MORE law abiding citizens, just to try and stave off the idiots from getting in and shooting places up..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

What is the ROE for these teachers? What are their protections if they miss the shooter and hit a kid? What is their liability if they don't act? Are they allowed to shoot a kid attacking another kid with a knife? What are the school's options if none of the teachers want to carry? Do schools hire less proficient teacher but ones that are willing to carry a weapon if they can’t make an arbitrary quota?

Those are things that would need to be worked out, and as for the last part on a quota, i disagree with trump we should MANDATE one. BUT i also disagree with all the naysayers that its a 'f*D&(*DC# stupid idea to even arm ANY teachers..
IF THEY ARE willing to go through the process to GET CCW authorized, then they should be allowed to carry.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Places like banks, federal buildings etc. have been expected to be targets; schools not so much until about 30 years ago. I am not expected to be a target; I don’t have a security detail ... POTUS on the other hand is, he does and should have a detail.

But we didn't USED to arm banks or libraries, or concerts. WE changed with the times cause they WERE getting targeted. IMO THe same should apply to schools, since they ARE and have been targeted.. TO do otherwise is foolhardy (IMO).

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

It would get done via property taxes, but the cost would run a lot more than what you are estimating, beyond the obvious thing like the salaries there are costs for training, licensing, insurance, benefits etc. Once bureaucracy gets involved a $25k per year rent a cop will really cost closer to $50k a year, then they start retiring and you have those pensions too.

True, bureaucracies always bugger costs up..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Focusing on assault style weapons does skew the argument, but assault style weapons are the easiest to tighten up on (laws on those are more lax) and that particular type of weapon most easily makes an amateur more effective.

You must purchase the machine gun upfront prior to transfer and have it shipped to your Class III dealer. For a full-auto M16, this will be anywhere from $12,000 and up. Typical prices for an M16 hover around $14,000 to $16,000.

Once purchased and with your dealer, the dealer will fill out the Form 4 application on your behalf to submission to the BATFE and collect your $200 NFA transfer stamp tax.

So as you can see, owning an "ASSAULT weapon" Which is defined as one that can be switched to full auto, IS A PAIN IN THE ASS.. AR-15s, are NOT FULL AUTO capable.. So defining them as assault rifles is disingenuous..

That was bi partisan. Again, I think if you wait for someone to be disturbed enough to need to be committed in an asylum then you are too late.

I agree. Its Bloogged up that a family has to wait till a kid (or brother/sister/parent) actually DOES SOMETHING, before they can get them committed... but them's the laws. SO THAT's imo what needs to change. NOT YET again banning an entire class of weapons, which as per the DOJ's own investigation did NOT reduce gun crimes...

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Going back to the 50s etc. we (the societal “we”) in general a higher regard for civility and human life. In many cases I would argue that a culture that has removed the filters on violence, sexual assault / violence, and an expansion of the idolization of criminal culture has resulted in youth / young adults that are inoculated to the mental barriers most people from when we were kids had on things like shooting up schools etc.

And that's just something, MOST of those i argue with, on the left, do NOT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

There was a heck of a lot more schools than just those in CA and FL. THere were ones in Texas, Ok, OH, KY, Wa and iirc In..

Those were just examples, not an all encompassing list. I don’t think there is sufficient support in the US at this time to get 2/3 of the states (32 being controlled by republican legislatures) to ratify a new amendment repealing or modifying the Second Amendment. What I do think could happen is that both sides dig in and don’t compromise and this type of thing continues and the press coverage increases, people’s sympathies, emotions ... whatever you want to call it take over and in 10, 15, 20 years it will happen with a blunt shift. Refer to how democrats made successive gains for two decades and then uncompromising legislation (ie Affoardable Care Act) and the unilateral actions of the Obama Admistration unified the right and pulled a lot of blue collar dems, independents, and centrists to vote for Trump. To think that can’t happen in the opposite direction is naive.

Originally Posted by garhkal

But WHY is it so all over the dam place? IF someone's mentally secure/mature enough to be an adult for some stuff, WHY THEN are they not seen as mentally mature for all things?
If they are not mature enough for some stuff, why are they mature enough for others??

In some cases I agree, it is arbitrary ... in some cases it is letting a kid grow up and learning to be an adult.

Originally Posted by garhkal

Maybe, maybe not. BUT i would rather NOT keep teachers disarmed/make yet MORE gun-free zones, and disarm yet MORE law abiding citizens, just to try and stave off the idiots from getting in and shooting places up..

What new gun free zones are being discussed? Granted, almost every school I know of is a gun free zone ... but I don’t know what else is being proposed.

I still don’t think mandating the arming of a percentage of teachers is the right move. In some cases this may work really well, I don’t think the majority reflects that and again ... that is not their profession. I also don’t think grabbing any vet because “the military gets weapons training” is a default good idea either. Look at how we do pier and brow security in the Navy, everyone is part of the security teams for a duty section regardless of rating etc. and we provide minimal (I would argue negligently minimal) training on how to engage a threat; this model was what resulted on the incident on the MAHAN. A stoned out his mind civilian with no military training got past 3 lines of security, took a weapon from a sentry and killed a Sailor before being neutralized, do you think a teacher with no training would do better? Outside of a few specific jobs, most military members don’t shoot regularly, grabbing a prior dental tech etc. because they have a DD214 and aren’t really qualified to do the job is a bad idea.

Originally Posted by garhkal

Those are things that would need to be worked out, and as for the last part on a quota, i disagree with trump we should MANDATE one. BUT i also disagree with all the naysayers that its a 'f*D&(*DC# stupid idea to even arm ANY teachers..
IF THEY ARE willing to go through the process to GET CCW authorized, then they should be allowed to carry.

But getting a CCW permit doesn’t make someone certified in CQB which is essentially the scenario. I think protecting the perimeter, adding a trained/certified/professional security force to perimeter and internal security is better than adding a bunch of part time/amateur shooters to the mix is a better proposal.

Originally Posted by garhkal

But we didn't USED to arm banks or libraries, or concerts. WE changed with the times cause they WERE getting targeted. IMO THe same should apply to schools, since they ARE and have been targeted.. TO do otherwise is foolhardy (IMO).

As far back as I can remember there has been security or police st banks at banks and concerts; I still don’t see them at libraries. I agree that the time has come to protect schools, I don’t think it is a teacher’s job.

It is a long list, a lot of it is basic rules. I purchased an AR15 in Nov in Maryland. I was in and out in about 45 minutes. The only thing that sped it up was since I am active duty I did not have to bring certification of a safety course. If I was a civilian and brought that cert, the process would have been the same; it is not very restrictive at all.

Originally Posted by garhkal

So as you can see, owning an "ASSAULT weapon" Which is defined as one that can be switched to full auto, IS A PAIN IN THE ASS.. AR-15s, are NOT FULL AUTO capable.. So defining them as assault rifles is disingenuous..

I don’t think it is a pain in the ass. I agree, they are not assault weapons, they are assault style(d) weapons.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

I agree. Its Bloogged up that a family has to wait till a kid (or brother/sister/parent) actually DOES SOMETHING, before they can get them committed... but them's the laws. SO THAT's imo what needs to change. NOT YET again banning an entire class of weapons, which as per the DOJ's own investigation did NOT reduce gun crimes...

Having a custodial child placed for mental care is not as onerous as you may think, but you can’t do it just because you want to.

And again, most people are not talking about banning any more types of weapons ... make st are talking about keeping them out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

Originally Posted by garhkal

And that's just something, MOST of those i argue with, on the left, do NOT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

It may be the people you talk with, websites or sources you gather data from, or if as you say ... you are arguing. Having a conversation vice arguing may be the first step to finding common and workable ground. The problem here is that there are extremes on the left and the right who don’t want to compromise or meet in the middle and that gets nothing done until enough on the middle are persuaded one way or the other. Then you end up with the all or nothing solution; if it works for your side you are happy ... if not then it is tyranny.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Those were just examples, not an all encompassing list. I don’t think there is sufficient support in the US at this time to get 2/3 of the states (32 being controlled by republican legislatures) to ratify a new amendment repealing or modifying the Second Amendment.

With all the push we are getting cause of this, inc the NRA boycotts, i wouldn't be so sure there's not enough of a populus vote to do that..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

In some cases I agree, it is arbitrary ... in some cases it is letting a kid grow up and learning to be an adult.

So why not set the age the same for EVERYTHING? Why have such diverging ages?

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Outside of a few specific jobs, most military members don’t shoot regularly, grabbing a prior dental tech etc. because they have a DD214 and aren’t really qualified to do the job is a bad idea.

Hence why trump and others are saying Let them carry, ONCE THEY get stringently screened and qualify. DOn't just hand them a gun cause they wish it..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

But getting a CCW permit doesn’t make someone certified in CQB which is essentially the scenario. I think protecting the perimeter, adding a trained/certified/professional security force to perimeter and internal security is better than adding a bunch of part time/amateur shooters to the mix is a better proposal.

True, just getting a CCW doesn't mean one can shoot straight, but some states DO require proof of range qualifications to give the CCW out.. Perhaps that's something that can change. AND its one thing the NRA has been on board with for donkey's rears.. GIVING proper training and range time to everyone who wishes to carry..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

It is a long list, a lot of it is basic rules. I purchased an AR15 in Nov in Maryland. I was in and out in about 45 minutes. The only thing that sped it up was since I am active duty I did not have to bring certification of a safety course. If I was a civilian and brought that cert, the process would have been the same; it is not very restrictive at all.

And that was cause an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, ergo you can purchase one quickly..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

And again, most people are not talking about banning any more types of weapons ... make st are talking about keeping them out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

Maybe not everyone, but there ARE plenty saying disarm the population. Stop allowing X type of weapons to even be owned. Heck at that town hall with Rubio, there were PLENTY of hecklers who were saying even 'kill the 2nd amendment, and confiscate all guns!".. When you have people like that talking for one side, there's no real way to HAVE a decent conversation..